Monday, October 31, 2011

After denying earlier in the day that he knew of any paid settlements to women claiming harassment at the National Restaurant Association, Herman Cain acknowledged to FOX New's Greta van Susteren that he remembered a payment made to one woman when he was CEO, according to the Washington Examiner's Byron York.

York provides the details, including Cain's recollection of what caused the sexual harassment accusation:

"She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying -- and I was standing close to her -- and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, 'My wife comes up to my chin.'" At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. "And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable," Cain said, "something that was in the sexual harassment charge."

The complaint involves more than one charge, according to Politico, but Cain did not remember any other incidents.

Expect the reporting on this to continue to unfold.

From 3:00 PM:

Herman Cain is forcefully denying a Politico report that two women said he harassed them when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s. Now he might have a potential campaign financing issue to confront, too.

From the original Politico report on the harassment allegations:

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

At an appearance before the National Press Club this afternoon, Cain called the accusations "a witch hunt" and said that he was unaware of any payments to accusers. Politico reports that those payments were in the five-figure range for each of the accusers - and adds these details about the allegations, from "a half-dozen sources":

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

"I have never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association. I say falsely because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless."

Also today, Cain told CBS News that he knew nothing about his campaign skirting campaign finance laws, as reported in Sunday's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. That report said two of Cain's top officials started a Wisconsin charity that helped pay $40,000 of expenses to get the Cain campaign off the ground.

This story certainly has some playing out to do as other news organizations do their own reporting on it, and Cain will appear on FOX today to presumably rebut the allegations again. Cain's credibility is hurt by his initial non-denial, and his candidacy, which rose quickly to fill the Not-Mitt-Romney vacuum left by Rick Perry's poor debate performances, is fragile for a frontrunner. It won't take much to deflate Cain's rise.

Also, part of Cain's appeal has been his different-ness. He is blunt and quirky, and in a political era where we sometimes judge our candidates for persona as much as politics, that maverick sense has helped him shoot to the top of the polls. If true, these allegations steal most of that away. He'll be, simply, a bad boss who engaged in ugly behavior.

Also from earlier:

The Poynter Institute breaks down the factors that will determine whether the Cain allegations become a full-fledged scandal.

The Washington Post draws a parallel to the sexual harassment allegations surround Clarence Thomas before his confirmation hearing in 1991 and wonders if Cain will use a similar defense - that the allegations amount to what Thomas called a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."

This has zero to do with GOP swiftboaters, plantation voter. When the liberal media can't bring down the other side with the tag of racism, this is the other attack. Vile liberal cowardice once again rearing it's ugly head. Under terms of non-disclosure means no one gets to talk about the settlement, including Mr. Cain, nor the alleged victims, nor the attorneys. Meaning he can't defend himself. Settlements like this happen all the time. If Bill Clinton can survive being a confirmed serial woman abuser with at least one ra9e allegation against, then this will pass as well it should.

We need to focus on getting the current disaster out of the White House on the very same day that we just learned that yet another solar energy co just declared bankruptcy that this garbage newspaper will not mention one time.

What appears to be tedious "Stick", is the entirely predictable response of the right-wing to this latest case of improper and inappropriate behavior by a high-profile conservative African-American.

They're so thrilled to have an Uncle Tom on their "team" that they can point to in order to persuade blacks to vote Republican (and to counter the above-reproach Obama) that they're willing to overlook things that would immediately scuttle the political career of any other man. Clarence Thomas is one of the worst Supreme Court justices in memory and the comparison is appropriate.

Thomas has YET to pose ANY question whatsoever in any case before the Court, and often appears to be asleep while lawyers are presenting their cases. He simply looks over at Roberts and Scalia and votes however they vote (ALWAYS conservative/corporate). Anyone who saw his disgusting behavior at his confirmation hearing where he attempted to "lynch" a good and upstanding woman in Anita Hill knew how awful he would be on the nation's highest court. And the right-wing propaganda machine defended him the same way they'll defend Cain. How pathetic; how sad.

I see the Democratic Party and their allies in the MSM have been hard at work again.

But to answer the question...I guess he can survive "allegations" from two women who accused him of nothing more than feeling uncomfortable with something he said. Afterall Dem superstar and idol William Jefferson Clinton did quite well despite two women's consensual and confirmed affairs (Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky) including a young white house intern. And three women who accused him of forcing himself on them (Jaunita Broaderick, Paula Jones and Kathlene Willy). Those are just the ones we know about.

However Cain does have a more moral and demanding voter base than Clinton...Republican voters.

"Ron Paul's presidential campaign is the first to respond to POLITICO's story this evening detailing accusations of inappropriate behavior made against Herman Cain when he headed the National Restaurant Association.

Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton criticized Cain in an email for being soft on the Fed and supporting the 2008 bank bailouts — but didn't comment directly on the allegations against Cain.

"We plan to beat Herman Cain on the issues, like his support for TARP and his cozy relationship with the Federal Reserve, not by assaulting his character," Benton told POLITICO.

Silly man - you have to be a Dem to get away with this - hell, a good dem can even kill a young girl - spend hours trying to cover it up before "waking up at his hotel" - and still be a revered Senator for 40 more years..

Interesting that the poster calling himself Fred Flintstone offers an opinion on the quality of Justice Thomas' tenure on the Court while appearing utterly ignorant of Thomas's actual history with the Court. For example, while he is less than talkative, it is simply not true that he has never asked a question during oral arguments. Nor is it true that he votes in lockstep with any other Justice or Justices. He has been quite independent from his very earliest days and has in fact, by all informed accounts been a force in shaping the modern Court.

Those are facts and are not at all in dispute among Court historians. So why does Flintstone lie about him? Most probably because he is both ignorant of reality, and sympathetic to the needs of the race hustlers in our society who insist that society MUST be divided along the lines of race, and MUST have racial conflict. A highly successful black man who is simply a very influential Justice -who does not see himself as "the black justice" but rather as simple another of the none- is threatening to them and must be denigrated however possible.

Such behavior would be shameful if the acolytes of the race hustlers knew any better, but I suspect that they are, instead, simply pathetic.

Will the CO drop the story after one day, similar to how they handled Obama and Bill Ayers (kicked off campaign at a terrorist house), "improper" land deal with Tony Rezko (a campaign contributor who is in jail for fraud), or the numerous loans to failing green companies with ties to the administration?

Probably not. But much like many members of the "mainstream media", they are too busy painting Obama as an anti-Wall Street guy, while burying the fact he has been the largest beneficiary of those evil people's political contributions the last four years.

Tamdenfusion, your knowledge of Judge Clarence Thomas is woefully lacking, or perhaps you get all of your "information" from Fox News or Clearchannel radio talk shows.

It is in fact true that Justice Thomas has never once asked a single question of any petitioner to the Supreme Court. He is widely regarded to be the least intellectually disciplined member of the court, as well as the least knowledgeable of the cases brought before it. After all, since he will always reliable take the conservative position indicated by the other right-wing judges, why should he bother? And he lied like a dog about Anita Hill during his confirmation hearing; she was but one of his harassment victims. None of which concerns you, obviously.

Republicans try to rewrite history to suit their narrative every day. Clearly today is no exception on this board.

Look, it wasn't the "liberal media" that caused Cain, or Thomas, to act like a misogynous creeps. That's just part of who they are.

Republicans don't have a problem with creeps, as long as he's THEIR creep. Thus, their willingness to exclude creepy behavior from their own politicians while flogging poor ol' Bill Clinton - who happened to preside over the last sustained period of American prosperity, lest we forget - as unmercifully as they AND the mainstream media did back in the 90's. They trot him out every time something like this comes to light, presumably to make everyone forget the current creep is a Republican presidental candidate.

I believe Cain is the best Republican running, so of course they are going to do all they (whoever) can to destroy him like all other candidates.Personally I believe Cain is the best chance we have to get Obama out of there. No doubt - Obama, and the dems are doing all they can to get rid of Cain.

About this blog

The Observer's editorial board cares deeply about Charlotte and the Carolinas, and has a problem with public officials who have forgotten that they report to citizens. Editorial page editor Taylor Batten and associate editors Peter St. Onge and Eric Frazier tackle politics and public policy issues locally, across the state and nation. Kevin Siers tackles those issues too in cartoons. Read their columns and biographical information on the CharlotteObserver.com Opinion page.